I was right. "What I don't expect is that anything substantive will change."
So, they ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but that whatever limits they wish to place upon that right, such as permits, licenses, fees, and prohibitions on effective weapons of military design (the exact weapons specifically protected by the Second Amendment) are OK. Just as long as they pretend it is not an outright ban on guns.
Wrong again, psychos. Rights can not be limited, restricted, licensed, or abolished; but only respected or violated. Guess which side of the fence you have come down on once again.
____________________________________
Supreme Court cases are very specific, and in this case it was specifically about the handgun ban in DC.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to question other kinds of gun bans, or restrictions on gun usage, you need to file your own lawsuit and litigate it all the way to the US Supreme Court.
If the decision was so specific, the "justices" should not have stated their opinions on why violations will still be allowed to stand and be enforced. They should have struck down the specific "law" they were considering and then not said another lying word.
ReplyDeleteThe government will never allow a court case to go through that will strike down their tyranny-protection laws. The best that will ever happen is what happened in this case: they will give lip-service to liberty, while excusing and enabling tyranny.
Fighting them in court is a no-win situation. Their house, their "rules". There is no place for justice there.